Action: Stanford falls behind 25-6, rallies late and loses at Oregon State.Reaction I: For those scoring at home: Stanford is 0-7 0-6 on the road in league play with a trip to Arizona remaining. The last time it went 0-9? Back in 1993, of course.Reaction II: This is also the first time since ’93 that the Cardinal has been swept by Oregon State. (All ignominious Stanford stats go back to the injury-decimated ’93 season, Montgomery’s only losing year on The Farm.)

Reaction II: Anyone notice the Corvallis stat lines for seniors Anthony Goods and Lawrence Hill? Goods was 0-for-3 from the field while Hill went 1-for-5. Could it be — knowing that the NCAAs are out of reach — that the seniors have packed it in? We’ll find out Saturday, I suppose.Reaction III: Coach Johnny Dawkins said after the loss that changes to personnel and style might be in order. I imagine he’ll give shooter Jeremy Green more minutes, but a style change at this point in the season? That’s highly unusual and only necessary if, for instance, you’ve been playing the wrong defense all season. As noted on the Hotline before, Stanford doesn’t have the personnel to apply ball pressure 30 feet from the basket. The basic philosophy for years under Montgomery/Johnson was: “Heels on the three-point line.” The Cardinal played a low-risk, protect-the-lane defense, which is why it was often last in the league in steals but first in rebounding and field-goal percentage defense. This team, which pressures the perimeter with no shot blocker to protect the basket, is next-to-last in the conference in FG defense: 50.5% in league game, ahead of only winless Oregon.Reaction IV: If the Cardinal loses in Eugene — and it sure feels like this is Oregon’s big chance for a victory — then we could very well be looking at a season-ending eight-game losing streak. Stanford has already dropped three in a row, and its last four (L.A.s at home/Arizonas on the road) are against teams fighting for NCAA bids and seeds.

Action: Cal hammers Oregon for ninth conference victory.Reaction I: Two more and the Bears are in the NCAAs, one more and they’ll have a good chance (but might need to win once in the league tournament). That makes Saturday’s rematch in Corvallis mighty important: Winning one of the last four (home vs. USC?) is a lot easier than winning two of the last four (sweep the L.A.s or win one in Arizona).Reaction II: And lookie here: After four consecutive wins, the Bears are a half-game out of first place. There is a formula for them to win the league title that doesn’t involve running the table, I just don’t have three hours to figure it out.

Action: UCLA holds off Washington to force a four-team tie (in the loss column) atop the conference.Reaction I: In the decisive sequence, the Bruins made all the plays: Jrue Holiday drive, Isaiah Thomas missed FT (front end of one-and-one: huge), Alfred Aboya jumper, Thomas out-of-bounds, Dragovic offensive rebound. To take the king’s crown, you’ve gotta play flawlessly in the final five minutes, and the Huskies didn’t.Reaction II: The league is guaranteed to have a four-loss champion for the first time in three years. But could we have a five-loss champ? Work with me here … Washington loses to Arizona/ASU in Seattle … ASU loses to Arizona or at UW/WSU … Cal loses to USC/UCLA or in Arizona … UCLA loses in the Bay Area … Hey, stranger things have happened, such as:

Action: Oregon State records its sixth conference win.Reaction: That’s six more than last year and four or five more than anyone expected.Reaction II: First-year Coach Craig Robinson should win Pac-10 COY, but the competition (Lorenzo Romar, Mike Montgomery and Russ Pennell) is pretty strong.Reaction III: In general, it’s been a solid year for the league’s coaches, with eight maximizing their personnel to this point (or coming fairly close). We’ll see how those eight fare down the stretch, and whether the other two, Stanford’s Johnny Dawkins and Oregon’s Ernie Kent, can make late-season strides.Reaction IV: Yes, Stanford was picked ninth and is currently in ninth. But the preseason poll wasn’t an accurate assessment of the Cardinal’s personnel. In my opinion, Stanford has a better roster (combo of talent and experience) than Oregon, Oregon State and Washington State.

Action: USC Coach Tim Floyd ejected from the ASU game in final minutes.Reaction I: I’m a little late on this one … Clearly, Floyd made a major mistake in blowing his stack and costing his team a chance to win. And yet it was a terrible call, even given the circumstance (late in a close game, home team gets the close calls).Reaction II: That said, the Pac-10′s statement’s — calling out the erroneous media reports on Randy McCall’s signal/non-signal — was in poor form. Commish Tom Hansen wondered “how anyone who observed the play could have imagined that Mr. McCall signaled any specific type of foul.”Reaction III: Here’s how: Because Pac-10 football/men’s basketball officiating is so colossally bad, and egregious mistakes are made with such astounding frequency, that longtime league observers/coaches/media are conditioned to assume the worst.

Jon Wilner

Post navigation

Pac-10 officiating blew another one last night. Jordan Wilkes gets absolutely mugged in the paint, gets a bloody nose and a concussion AND gets called for a foul!!! Whoever the new commish is, has to clean house on this. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

Cal can win the title if it wins 4 of the last 5…and everyone else mugs each other. Not easy but that’s the surest way.

I really am feeling sorry for Stanfurd…although I can’t help smiling too.

mk92

“All ignominious Stanford stats go back to the injury-decimated ‘93 season, Montgomery’s only losing year on The Farm.”

I don’t know what your point is in referring to the 93 season as “injury-riddled.” I can only assume it’s to some how excuse Monty’s coaching job that season. Hate to break it to you, but injuries were not the problem; rather, lack of talent was the main issue (which is directly attributable to the coach). To refresh your memory, 93 was the season after Adam Keefe graduated and the season before Brevin Knight. What was the big injury that year? Jim Morgan? Peter Dukes? You’ve got to be kidding me…that team had 10th place talent.

milo

Geez, Monty had one (1) losing season at Furd out of 18. So blame him for ’93 and don’t count the other 17? Man, talk about ingrates and bitter pills.

Yeah I’m defending Monty because HE’S A GOLDEN BEAR!!!

Papa John

I’ll defend Monty, too. He’s a great coach and I wish he were still coaching Stanford. As painful as those NCAA tournament losses to Siena, Gonzaga, Alabama and others were… Well, when I was a student, Stanford in the NCAA tournament was unimagineable (geez, things have come full circle). Anyway, I remember in 1985, when Stanford beat UCLA at Maples, all of us in the Stanford student section were chanting “NIT, NIT!” That chant was because we were hoping to get a bid to the NIT that year — it didn’t happen. Then Mike Montgomery was hired, expectations went through the roof, and Stanford fans became spoiled.

So Stanford fans, please stop criticizing Monty’s Stanford days. Those were the glory days for Stanford basketball.

mk92

I’m not criticizing Monty. He was a great coach and a great recruiter. And, he’s entitled to one bad season (more, actually). But, there’s no need for Wilner to try to sugarcoat or excuse that one bad season by blaming it on injuries. My issue is not with Monty; it’s with Wilner’s journalism.

PapaBear

Who doesn’t have issues with Wilner? Anyone??

milo

I don’t have any issues w/ Wilner but then I don’t have any issues with anyone here even the Furds…although CU trolls are annoying.

Sure some of it doesn’t make sense but then what in college sports does? The amateur-BIG money paradox?

I mean it’s a freakin’ college sports blog, there’s plenty of other stuff to be worried about. This is distraction-jackoff time, and Wilner and his blog colleagues are simply professional jackoffs. Must be a nice life.

PapaBear

“Montgomery is to Stanford, as Tedford is to Cal.”

There will always be detractors, who believe that EVEN MORE should have been achieved during their coaching tenures. But those who know better, recognize that their team achievements exceed all other modern era coaches at their respective schools. And we should appreciate their accomplishments, for tomorrow may be a return to the past.

TommyCoug

Wow, Milo, now that was certainly an articulate and descriptive post!

Why don’t you tell us all how you really feel? Or are you too busy “- -”?

Will

Wilner, isn’t Stanfurd 0-6 in road league play, not 0-7? They’ll beat Oregon for their first road win.

jim

One more opinion about Montgomery: Were Montgomery at Stanford this year, and either Braun or Dawkins at Cal, it is likely that Stanford has Cal’s record–or better–and Cal Stanford’s–or worse.

The talent on these two teams is pretty comparable. After the first Stanford-Cal game, it appeared that Stanford might actually be more talented.

Mike is simply a great coach.

Remember, Cal lost its two most significant big men to the NBA draft, replaced them with Theo Robertson and Jorge Gutierrez. This current team is a less talented, though a bit more experienced, than the teams that finished 6 and 12 the last two seasons.

lesliemedford

I made a pre-season prediction of a 9-9 conference record for Stanford and thus I am a bit chagrined. After the three one-point losses I took some solace that I had predicted there would be heart breakers, and was still thinking Coach Dawkins would turn some tables and the Cardinal might still “overachieve” (as I had written) by making some heartbreak for someone else too. I was pleased of course when we dismantled Cal at home…I still had optimism at that point.

I still believe Coach Dawkins deserves three years to prove himself, but I have found myself moving from enthusiasm to a more “prove it” stance faster than I would have previously believed possible. I think Stanford has underachieved and that is at the feet of the head coach AND that is something truly onerous to someone who thinks Stanford almost always gets more with less.

I cannot explain why Goods has had such a lackluster year, nor can I understand the dearth of confidence I see infecting everyone except Landry and Green. The poor free throw shooting and the turnovers are likewise things I would have expected Dawkins to control and change. Whereas almost every major player has had one good game or more, (except Shiller and Owens which again I find mystifying) beyond the lack of a big man inside (Robin Lopez, you let us down) I see the opposite of a Motivator in Coach Dawkins as the real damnation of this team this year. More than the failure of his defensive scheme.

Am I having a crisis of confidence in Stanford Basketball or Athletics in general? Not at all. Do I wish I went to Cal or was represented by any other group of athletes than the ones Stanford showcases? Unfathomable and in poor taste. That doesn’t mean coaches Dawkins and Harbaugh don’t both need to be smarter, more reflective in general, and find a way – through as yet untapped INGENUITY – to get it done. I hope this doesn’t prove to be beyond either man.

Jacob Wang

The program which is in ninth place in Pac-10 men’s basketball expects to contend for the Sears Cup each year?? How wide is the curve?

lesliemedford

Jacob,
Give it a rest and quiet the penis envy. Yes, the depth of Stanford’s program is that good…we won’t simply “contend”, we will win our 15th consecutive easily. It’s called the Director’s Cup by the way…Sears hasn’t sponsored it for years. Furthermore, you peevish wise acre you, Stanford has long been earning points towards the Cup in Men’s Basketball, just not this year. Last year you surely recall we finished the year ranked 9th nationally, and thus earned points.

I’m positive it takes a small minded sort such as yourself to actually believe men’s football and basketball are the only sports that matter. Amazing that you Berkeley types spawned on the welfare state, who claim to be educated, enlightened, liberated, populist and “Everyman” hold such a neaderthal outlook regarding athletics. I don’t believe in you.

PapaBear

Jim:

I agree completely. Thank goodness Cal is not being led by Dawkins or Braun (8-17 at Rice), or this year at Cal would likely be .500 or worse.

KUDOS to Sandy Barbour for FINALLY ridding Cal of Braun and hiring Montgomery. For too long Cal fans, alums, and administrators failed to see Braun’s teams as underachievers and accepted all his excuses for the lack of success.

I was passing a petition to FIRE BEN BRAUN in 2006 – yes the year he took Cal to the NCAAs. Despite that year’s “success”, it was obvious that Cal was consistently outcoached. Braun’s style of play was unimaginative and unBEARable to watch. Leon Powe carried the team, overcame Braun’s tendancy to slow down the tempo, and the Bears won in spite of the coach.

Did anyone see the Darrall Imhoff interview during the half-time of Thursday’s Cal vs Oregon game? Imhoff praised Montgomery and described Braun’s offense as “leaving much to be desired.”

If you can’t beat ‘em, have ‘em join you. I greatly appreciate having former Stanford Coach Mike Montgomery at Cal. He has been a difference maker! The Pac-10 Coach of they Year Award needs to go to him, without question.

ASIDE: More KUDOS to Sandy Barbour for recognizing that women’s basketball matters, and hiring Joanne Boyle to make Cal competitive and build a program that represents the greatness of UC Berkeley.

GO BEARS!!

Dubya

No doubt Montgomery is the best coach you Weenies have had on the hardwood in over a decade, possibly a quarter-century. I hope he does for you what he did for Stanford and put your program on the national map.

Jury’s still out on Dawkins, and will probably be that way through next season as well. If anyone is to blame for Stanford basketball this year, it’s Bowlsby. So far he’s two for two in completely blowing how to handle head coaches in his two biggest sports. The budget issues are of his making, and if he focused on making sure he has good communication with both of them and is getting them what they need to be more successful, then all of this whining and bitching will go away.

Of the three – Bowlsby, Hairball, and Dawkins – I expect Bowlsby to be the first to go, and probably not by choice.

PapaBear

Leslie:

Call me a Neanderthal, but College Football is KING! I believe that Stanford fans should take a “prove it” stance torward Harbaugh. Two losing seasons proves nothing! I think Stanford fans are giving Harbaugh too much of a “free pass”, and that is dangerous. It’s what happend at Cal with Braun (hoops) and Holmoe (football), and both coaches drove their respective programs into the ground.

Dubya: Concur that accountability starts at the top, and Bowlsby should not feel secure about his job.

lesliemedford: When Bowlsby is relieved of his duties, will you be applying???

harold

Lesliemedford, could you explain your “three seasons to prove himself” standard a little more? Dawkins has had one bad season, and he’s about to have a TERRIBLE season — he loses four guys who’ve started at least one game, and must replace them with a single rehabbing freshman. What exactly does he have to do in that third season to make him a success in your eyes? Win more games than in the second? He’ll probably be able to do with without cracking double figures. Produce a winning season? Unlikely. Contend for the conference title? Impossible.

Dawkins has proven that he’s not much a game-day coach — he’s chalked up some of the worst losses in Stanford history (ASU, UCLA) and, except for kal, he hasn’t beaten a single decent team. And he’s proven that he’s no recruiter all — with Stanford coming off a Sweet 16 season, and Dawkins himself able to make maximum use of his Duke and Olympics credentials, he could only sign a single recruit.

So tell me, what’s going to change in that third season? Except that Stanford basketball success will be an even more distant memory.

lesliemedford

Harold,

I believe a head coach deserves three years to prove him/herself. Exceptions being 1) lack of good character, particularly NCAA violations; 2) exhibits a desire to leave Stanford prematurely.

In my opinion Dawkins was hired too late to recruit effectively this year. I am willing to see how he does over the next two seasons. I certainly hope event will not prove as dire as you predict. Basketball programs can turn on a heel and change dramatically in either direction with the infusion of a single major talent with a decent supporting cast (including coaches.) And even if Dawkins has three years of increasingly poor results I think he is owed his three year chance. He moved across the country, and he is a decent human being with certainly an excellent basketball past. Bowlsby would share the blame, et cetera, et cetera…Bowlsby won’t be missed at this rate.

The Lopez twins and Toby Gerhart all their lives wanted to attend and play for Stanford regardless of the status of the program at the time of their matriculation, and there are dozens of other athletic successes who fit this category. In the Mercury article “Cardinal’s Cornerstone Class” (2/5/09) in the “Comment” after each players name, things such as “dreamed of playing for Cardinal” and “had offers from six other Pac-10 schools” and “picked Stanford over Florida, Alabama, Michigan and Tennessee” can be found. Probably many on this list received an offer from Cal. Only one Cal recruit chose Cal after being admitted to Stanford, and they also got (and can have with my blessing) Markish Jones “Headed to Clemson in ’07, didn’t qualify, went to Compton CC”.

Dawkins might get lucky with a player or two of this sort. He needs to work the Stanford angle for all it’s worth. Whereas I am suddenly underwhelmed at this point with his handling of this year’s underachieving team, I don’t believe the book should be closed on Coach Dawkins yet. For him to be retained after three years, yes, I think he needs to be held to the standard of getting the best out of himself, his players and the Stanford name, and that means a winning season and a program that is back on track for the NCAA Tourney.

PapaBear,

I have written here that Harbaugh has not proven himself by any means. I have also written about my disappointment in him this off season regarding NFL speculation he has allowed, and that I don’t see why he would be considered for an NFL head coaching job at this point. He has a helluva lot more to prove in my opinion. I like his talk. I want the walk.

milo

PB and Cal Fans, Ludwig was a HUGE hire. He’s the man behind Utah’s big offense and a few others AND a QB specialist.

All I can say is imagine Jahvid Best with a decent QB and passing game. NOW imagine Jahvid Best with a very good or excellent passing game.

The pieces are falling in place. Nothing like an instant upgrade.

GO BEARS!

Bearfan90

Medford

Taking a cheap shot at a Cal recruit in your wall of text? Seemed like you went on a tangent as it doesn’t really have anything to do with the question of why Dawkins should get three years to prove himself.

“First of all, he has to attend class and make practice. Show a consistency — go to class, make practice,” Johnson told the San Jose Mercury News. “It’s pretty simple. I’ve said it all along, Brook has a chance to be special. But the bottom line is you’ve got to go to class, study vigorously and you get to participate.”

BearCub

Milo, Here you go again. Ludwig is the greatest and now everything is perfect in the Cal world. You’re amazing. Cal will now probably make it to the 2010 Rose Bowl. Right? Upgrade? Maybe if he brought some of his Utah’s players!

milo

BearCub said, “Hey you kids get off my lawn, and no fun for you!!!”

Look BC, broncoclown, or whoever you are, if you don’t think Ludwig is an upgrade, fine. I venture to say most Cal fans do. The rest of the stuff…you’re making stuff up, never suggested any of that.

bigbullship

Wow-

Dawkins is done- he is the worst coach in the PAC10- he has been outcoached all years and Wilner is correct in the defense he has staford playing is wrong for his personnel. He is not at duke where his team out-talents 95% of the teams they play year in and year out. At stanfor d you get 1 or 2 very good players- with hopefully 5-6 tough, smart, hard working roll players- and beat teams with consistancy , physcial play, smart discplined basketball- exactly what Cal is doing >< this year (like we are suprised) Dawkins will get 3 years- because bowlsby won’t admit a bad hire sooner than that- unless Stanford gets lucky and dawkins quits after a 5-26 record next year but Stanford will be bad until they hire Revano and give him 3-4 years to fix this mess. Furd has like 5 plaers for next years team hahahah like 5..with no recruits on the radar..doomed